Quote:
Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee
I could have raised a stink about it, but it wasn't worth it.
|
Already learned that one the hard way
-----------------------------------------------------
I finished the revised paper and earned a "B", which I suppose is not so bad. How I got a "B" on a Frankenstein of a paper stiched together from bits I copied out of the text eludes me, but it worked. Now we move on to theories of social justice and economic distribution, which is going to be a real pain in the butt for me because the text bashes libertarianism at every turn. Take the following, for example:
Quote:
Imagine, for example, that having purchased the forest in which I occasionally stroll, the new owner bars my access to it. It would seem that my freedom has been reduced because I can no longer ramble where I wish. BUt libertarians deny that this is a restriction of my liberty. My liberty is restricted if and only if someone violates my Lockean rights, which no one has done. Suppose that I go for a hike in the forest anyway. If the sherriff's deputies arrest me, they prevent me from doing what I want to do. But according to libertarianism, they do not restrict my liberty, nor do they coerce me. Why not? Because my hiking in the woods violates the landowner's rights.
Here libertarians seem driven to an unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, but they have no choice. They cannot admit that abridging the landowner's freedom to do as he wants with his property would expand my freedom. If they did, their theory would be in jepoardy. They would have to acknowledge that restricting the liberty or property rights of some could enhance the liberty of others.
|
Is it just me, or does this seem like absolute nonsense to anyone else? I ask because this may be another case where I need some perspective. It seems to me as if the authors completely misinterpret libertariansim, which has never advocated maximum freedom at all costs, whilst simultaneously undermining basic human rights in an attempt to sap libertarianism's defenses. After all, let's say we did let the little bastard go hiking in the woods because we don't respect property rights. What's to stop someone from hiking through his home and collecting his valuables?
The whole point of libertariansim, Nozick's theory, and the assorted offshoots is that there is a system by which minimal restriction of liberty can maximise ethicality and social justice, but the text later pits liberty against utilitarianism, claiming that they cannot coexist. If I had the time to type other examples I would, but one of my favorites is the text's critique of what libertarians would do with a homeless man. According to the text, it is ethical for a libertarian to leave a man to starve to death. I don't think anyone would consider that to be ethical, though libertarians may not consider it to be
unethical. For all you know, the man may take the money you saved him or gave him to push or buy drugs. Maybe he'll spend it on booze and die faster. The judgement, and the consequences thereof, are left to the individual.
Libertarianism may not be a perfect system of ethics or social justice, but as I argued in my paper, it is the baseline for determining ethicality, and because of its honesty, is the only true theory of ethics. I think that's a reasonable perspective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeonSamurai
As to the last bit, I have to say I, in general, do not have much faith in the individual (and especially the individual amongst a group), particularly when they start blindly spout party/faith/ism rhetoric with out the slightest bit of thought behind it. My experience has taught me repeatedly that most people prefer not to have to think (or do as little thinking as is possible), and as a (constantly) thinking person I do not much care for brainless reflexive behavior. But I am also convinced that most of the species is utterly nuts.
|
A little pessimistic for my taste, but I do agree with your observations about people in groups (None of us is as dumb as all of us) and people preferring to do as little thinking as possible, for the most part. The trick, though, is to refrain from systems that encourages such things. If people don't have a legion of people who promise them things to fall back on, they will have to think for themselves, and I do have faith in the intelligence, morality, and resourcefulness of most people. You just gotta be on guard for the bad ones.
And yes, we are all nuts.